Miscellaneous

Regulators Adjust Liquidity Rule for Big Banks

Published on: September 16, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A new rule adopted by U.S. banks will require over thirty of the largest banks, including Citigroup (C) and JPMorgan Chase (JPM), to add another $100 billion in cash or cash-like investments to what they currently hold to make sure that the firms don’t run out of money in a crisis. Previous expectations were for the banks to raise around $200 billion to satisfy the rule’s requirements. However, regulators have since reduced that number.

The liquidity rule is supposed to protect the financial system and the economy during times of stress in the market so that the same issues that led to the failures of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers during the 2008 economic meltdown don’t happen. The regulation mandates that firms have enough safe assets to cover 100% of their net cash outflows for 30 days when there is economic turmoil. With the final liquidity ratio banks, with assets between $50 billion and $250 billion will calculate their positions monthly instead of daily. They have until January 1, 2016 to comply with the rule.

According to The Wall Street Journal, The Clearing House, a trade group that represents banks, has expressed approval of the changes to the final rule. U.S. officials have said the liquidity coverage ratio creates a good balance between economic growth and financial stability. For now, municipal debt securities will not be considered safe, “high-quality liquid assets” that can go toward a bank’s compliance. Meantime, however, some people have expressed worry that when the markets and the economy are good the rule could impede banks from investing or lending.

Mortgage Transfers to Nonbanks Get Closer Regulator Scrutiny

Published on: September 7, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In the last two years, millions of borrowers with mortgages have been moved from banks to nonbanks. This can result in problems for home loan borrowers.

A reason for this is that a lot of banks are getting rid of their mortgage servicing rights. 14 of the leading bank servicers, including JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC), and Bank of America (BAC) have sold off over $1 trillion of these rights in the last two years. The primary buyers are nonbank servicers, which now handle one in every seven mortgages.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is engaged in the oversight of nonbanks, enacted regulations earlier this year that extended rules for banks to nonbank servicers that collect mortgage payments and deal with foreclosures and modifications. Last month, the bureau also put out guidance on new regulations that specifies the way loan transfers to nonbanks should be dealt with, including a provision mandating that buyers and sellers conduct meetings in at timely manner to talk about the continuity of service before a mortgage is handed off. Sales contracts also must stipulate that mortgage documents need to be given to the new servicer. However, a recently released CFPB statement reported that some nonbank services are billing customers incorrectly, not honoring approved modifications, and losing paperwork.

Texas-Based Halliburton Settles Oil Spill Lawsuit for $1.1B

Published on: September 2, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Halliburton Co. (HAL) has consented to pay $1.1 billion to settle most of the lawsuits related to the massive 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. A court must still approve the deal, which covers claims for punitive damages that were filed by the commercial fishing industry and others impacted by the spill.

BP P.c (BP) Spill victims accused Halliburton, which is based in Houston, Texas, of defective cementing on the Macondo well prior to the spill. Halliburton blamed BP Plc., which was operating the rig. This is Halliburton’s most significant payout related to the spill to date.

The oil spill occurred when there was an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig. Eleven workers died and millions of oil barrels poured out into the gulf. Hundreds of lawsuits against Halliburton, BP, and Transocean Ltd, (RIG) which owned the rig ,soon followed.

Argentina Defaults, Misses Interest Payment Deadline on $13B of Restructured Bonds

Published on: August 4, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Argentina has gone into default after not getting a $539 million payment to bondholders. A default has been likely since a number of New York hedge funds, demanding that the South American nation pay them back in full for government bonds that defaulted in 2001, won their claims in court.

A federal district court judge in Manhattan ruled in 2012 that Argentina could not keep regularly paying its main class of bondholders, without paying the hedge funds. They refused to accept new exchange bonds as a trade for the defaulted securities. The older bonds have far greater value.

Among those “holdouts” were individual investors and hedge funds, such as Aurelius Capital Management and Elliot Management’s NML Capital. Billionaire Paul Singer owns Elliot Management. Argentina owes the hedge funds over a billion dollars.

BNP Pleads Guilty to Criminal Charges Over Sanctions Violations, Pays $8.8B Fine

Published on: June 30, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

BNP Paribas SA (BNP) has pleaded guilty to criminal U.S. charges that it violated sanctions. As part of the plea deal, the bank will pay an $8.8 billion fine.

According to the allegations, BNP processed funds involving Cuba, Iran and Sudan. The bank pleaded guilty to conspiracy, falsifying bank records, and conspiring to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. It will not be allowed to clear U.S. dollars for up to a year. This suspension is significant, since dollar clearing is key to doing business with international clients.

With the BNP case, authorities are making it clear that no bank is immune from criminal charges. The probe revolved around its commodity-trade finance enterprises in Geneva, Switzerland and Paris, France. Unauthorized dollar payments were made for oil companies to entities in Iran and Sudan.

DOJ Investigates Foreign-Exchange Industry Over Sales Markups

Published on: June 19, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to Bloomberg News, the U.S. Department of Justice is expanding its probe of the foreign-exchange industry by talking to the salespersons at the biggest banks in the world. They want to know about current sales practices, including how much customers are charged to exchange currency.

Over a dozen ex- and current traders and salespersons that were interviewed said that it is common to charge a hard markup, which factors in a slight margin for the services of a salesperson. Clients who don’t make currency deals too often or just in small quantities often don’t pay much attention to the rate they receive. Now, the DOJ wants to know if banks are committing fraud when they don’t properly disclose this practice to customers.

The Justice Department is just one of over a dozen authorities in the world that are probing the currency Now, banks are also conducting their own investigations in an attempt to negotiate for leniency just in case any disciplinary actions result.

Retirees Hurt, Brokers Enriched by $300 Billion 401(k) Rollover Boom

Published on: June 17, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to Bloomberg.com, as 401(k) rollovers continue to boom, it is the brokers who are profiting while the retirees are sustaining losses. Now, these investors are speaking out.

It was in 2012 that former employees moved $321 billion from 401(K) plans to individual retirement accounts-a 60% rise from the last decade. Now, the IRA is holding about $6.5 million in 401(k)-like accounts.

Even though retirees typically can keep their savings in 401(K) plans, financial firm reps. do reach out to try and persuade them to move their funds to IRAs instead. Internet ads, cold calls, cash incentives, and storefront signs are used to draw retirees in, including the promise of wider investment choices compared to their current plans. In one example of an incentive promised, E*Trade (ETFC) Financial Corp. and Bank of America Corp.’s (BAC) Merrill Lynch offer anyone who rolls over a 401 (K) plan into an IRA up to $600. (However, this can result in additional expenses down the road.)

Securities Lawsuits Accuse BlackRock Of Charging Exorbitant Investment Advisor Fees

Published on: May 8, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Timothy C. Davidson, a Florida investment adviser, is suing BlackRock (BLK). He says the money manager and other defendants breached their fiduciary duty by charging disproportionately high investment advisory fees for the BlackRock Global Allocation Fund (MDLOX). He says that the excessive fees had “no reasonable relationship” to the services that the firm provided.

Because of the alleged wrongdoing, Davidson contends, BlackRock Advisors was able to keep most of the benefits that stemmed from a growth in assets that were under management without properly sharing these with the fund or shareholders. The investment advisor also says that the fund’s board did not behave “conscientiously” when it approved markups and fees and this breaches certain obligations under the Investment Company Act of 1940.

The BlackRock Global Allocation Fund manages about $60 billion. Davidson said that a trust he helped establish owned $1 million of shares in the fund’s institutional share class. (David helped form the trust after he bought a lottery ticket that won the Powerball in 2011.)

FSOC Worries Crackdown on Banks is Creating New Risks

Published on: May 7, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Regulators belonging to the Financial Stability Oversight Council are looking at the new practices of asset managers, mortgage services companies, and insurers to search for potential threats related to certain high risk investment areas. The group just issued its yearly report to Congress, highlighting certain risks, both current and emerging ones. According to The Wall Street Journal, there is concern that the US government’s efforts to clamp down on banks could be sending risky activity outside the reach of legal recourse.

Since the 2008 financial crisis, banks are now subject to stricter rules. Two of the added requirements are that these financial institutions lower their exposure to high risk businesses and keep more loss-absorbing capital as protection in case of another economic meltdown. Now, however, regulators are watching to see whether financial firms that aren’t banks have been stepping in to fill in the roles that the latter vacated because of the stipulations.

For example, some nonbanks are now involved in mortgage servicing rights, which involves the collection and billing of mortgages. These firms aren’t under the same kind of regulatory oversight as banks, nor are they obligated to carry a specific cushion of capital.

In the report, the council expressed worry over certain securities lending markets-related activities. Asset-management firms are now providing protection services to investors engaging in short-selling and hedging. However, these firms also don’t have to carry a capital buffer. The regulators also expressed cause for possible concern because life-insurance companies have moved tens of billions of dollars of policy holder obligations to captive affiliates, which generally are not subject to even minimal disclosure.

The FSOC said it would keep an eye on these “emerging threats.” Areas that regulators have already identified as risk points include money-market mutual funds, repurchase agreements, short-term wholesale funding, growing interest rates, and cyber security. Also noted as possible causes for worry were whether fire sales might cause instability, how certain firms might be impacted by interest rates rising, the inadequate overhaul of the housing finance market, tight access to mortgage credits, and the markets’ dependence on Libor.

The council also acknowledging that there have been successes, including better balance sheets for big bank holding companies, greater confidence levels thanks to the Federal Reserve’s stress tests to gauge whether a financial institution could survive another economic crisis, the completion of the Volcker rule, and new rules for swaps markets and bank capital.

The SSEK Partners Group represents institutional investors and high net worth individual investors with securities fraud claims. We help clients get their money back.

Regulators See Growing Financial Risks Outside Traditional Banks, The Wall Street Journal, May 7, 2014

Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) Releases Fourth Annual Report, Treasury.gov

2014 Annual Report

Financial Regulators See Progress and Threats, NY Times, May 7, 2014

More Blog Posts:
Morgan Stanley Gets $5M Fine for Supervisory Failures Involving 83 IPO Shares Sales, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 6, 2014

Bank of America Ordered to Hold Off Giving Back Money To Shareholders After Incorrectly Reporting $4B in Capital, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, May 5, 2014

Lawyers, Investor Advocates Want to Know More About SEC Supervision Of FINRA’s Arbitrator Selections, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, December 2, 2013

Fidelity Investment, BlackRock, Other Asset Managers Take Issue with Plans to Expand Too Big to Fail Rules

Published on: April 28, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to InvestmentNews, some of the largest asset managers in the world are complaining that draft proposals for identifying financial institutions besides insurers and banks that may be too big to fail would employ an erroneous analysis of the investment industry. Fidelity Investment, Pacific Investment Management Co.(PIMCO), BlackRock Inc. (BLK), and others wrote written responses to a consultation made by international standard setters. Pimco, whose response was published on the International Organization of Securities Commission’s web site, called the blue print “fundamentally flawed,” saying that it failed to accurately show the risks involving the asset management industry or investment funds.

The proposals regarding too-big-to fail come after efforts by global regulators in the Financial Stability Board to rank insurers and banks according to their potential to trigger a worldwide financial meltdown. Under the plans published earlier this year by Iosco and FSB, investment funds with assets greater than $100 billion could be given the too big to fail label. The proposals are also suggesting possibly making asset managers that oversee with big funds subject to additional rules.

However, BlackRock, in its consultation response, is arguing that a fund’s size isn’t a sign of systemic risk and many of the biggest funds are not likely to pose issues of systemic risk. It also contends that concentrating on asset managers is the ‘wrong approach” seeing as they are “dramatically less susceptible” to getting into financial distress than other financial institutions. BlackRock is one of the firms that believes that international standard setters should instead put their attention on figuring out which activities could prove systematically essential rather than trying to label certain funds and asset managers as too big to fail.